Andreas Kostyrka wrote: > Additionally, the language core is very very thought out, with glacial > enhancements. "Fixing" the standard library OTOH would involve renaming > and removing names, which would make huge collections of programs break. > Not a good thing :(
Yes agreed. My comments there were primarily about the future of python (i.e. Python 3000). Kent Johnson wrote: > Ultimately it seems to come down to > - Python is open source > - Python developers are largely unpaid volunteers working on what interests them > - If you want something to change, you can > -- do it yourself > -- convince someone to volunteer to do it > -- pay someone to do it > > So far cleaning up the std lib has not attracted any of these three options. Yes of course. But not *all* Python developers are unpaid. And even if they were- this ship isn't rudderless. It could be steered towards standard library overhaul (in Py3000) if Guido so decreed (and if he laid out a nice appealing framework, perhaps). But I guess if everybody thinks it's ok or nobody thinks it can be improved then that isn't going to happen. Andreas Kostyrka wrote: > Stop. Somehow that one word just sums it all up! Yeah I'll stop. It's not like I'm out to upset anybody. But please, somebody up there, Think of the Children, eh? This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
